How many democrats own guns?

[2aguy]

Registration would make law enforcement easier and allows them to track where guns are acquired and confiscate guns that are not legally obtained. It also would facilitate prosecution of illegal arms dealers and reduce black market operations.

Every one of those things can already be done...and in fact is already being done....they arrest the criminal using the gun, they get him to roll over on the supplier, and then if the guy is an actual criminal, they arrest them too....

Keep in mind.....they have registration in all of the countries I have mentioned...and it doesn't stop their criminals....

Do you acknowledge that actual criminals will not have to register their illegal guns? So if you catch a criminal with an unregistered gun, you can't punish him for that crime..right? You can only punish law abiding gun owners who don't register their gun....

And gun registration in Canada.....had been stopped, why....it cost too much money, time and manpower and did nothing to solve crimes.....

More kids are killed in car accidents than are killed with guns.........we don't let 5 year olds buy, own or carry guns......how does that have anything to do with registering a gun....?

The analogy when to the rationale of having a regulatiry system to promote the safety of our citizens.

I don't want to get into a gun registration debate as it isn't something I would support. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level. It doesn't on a fiscal and operational level.

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law. Can you acknowledge that the law prevents SOME criminals (wreckless individuals would would likely inflict harm) from getting a gun?

Gun registration does not make sense on a law enforcement or safety level......

I have used this before...

If I put on a gun and carry it.....as long as I do not break any laws there is no cause to arrest me....and no need to register me.

If I am stopped by police they will run my name anyway for warrants...if they see I have a gun they can run my name and birthday for felonies....they can do that right now without my registering my gun.

If I am a law abiding gun owner and I take my gun and rob a store or commit a murder...they can already arrest me without having to register my gun.

If I am a felon...I cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun...and if I am stopped by police I can already be arrested on the spot for having the gun........

If I have my gun stolen, I can already go and fill out a report with the police and give them my serial numbers...

So no....gun registration is not necessary for safety or law enforcement...

I agree it isn't necessary but it would be effective, you painted around the effective points. It's off topic though so let get back to the Vegas situation.

Refresh Vega...I don't know what you are talking about....

\

Vegas refresh...

I'll give you one simple example. A young man was arrested for trying to murder Trump at one of his rallies in Vegas a few weeks ago. The kid flew to Vegas, took some shots at a gun range, went to the rally and tried to steal a gun from a guard at the rally where he was then arrested. I trust you are familiar with the incident?

Now take away gun control and play out the scenario... The kid goes to a gun store and buys a gun, kid is allowed to carry the gun to the rally (a point trump and gun advocates make would have saved lives in Paris and Orlando if people were carrying)... You have any doubt that trump would be dead right now without the restrictions that took the gun out of this kids hand at this event?

Thank you...I missed that post.......before I reply..is this the English kid?

 

[Flash]

[

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

So if we stop people from building swimming pools and that stops the accidental drowning of one child then the program would be a success?

 

[2aguy]

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

So under our current laws...the gun murder rate is already going down, as more people carry guns..without registration, or universal background checks...so we don't need them right....

Since 2,101 lives saved is bigger than 1...right?

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

2006-- 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

All factors would need to be considered. what do you attribute to the decrease?

1) better Law enforcement techniques

2) longer jail sentences for felons.

3) allowing Americans to carry guns
Un omw
The basis of the anti gun movement is their claim that more guns in more hands creates more gun murder, more gun crime and more violence.......i

This is not true as the actual statistics show...more Americans owning guns does not increase more gun mireder, crime or violent crime.....so there is no reason to keep normal people from owning guns....

Hat we need to do...focus on people w ho use guns to commit crimes..and lock them up....

I live in Chicago....the police commissioner was interviewed and stated they are arresting criminals with guns, but they are not getting prosecuted and the ones who are are not getting long sentenc s, even repeat gun felons....

If you care about saving lives.......focus on criminals...and licensing gun owners, registering guns and universal background checks don't do that..they are a distraction and are used by anti gunners to go after law abiding gun owners...

 

[PredFan]

As I said naive.

You think it's going to stay that way? That's the whole point.

Say hi to the Strawman for me

You keep using that word, but you have no idea what it means. Typical.

It means you are fighting an invisible enemy. You are objecting to things that are not a reality, they are a product of your paranoia and assumptions of a hidden agenda that you think your political opponents have. It takes you from reasonable status to wingnut or extremist status

You need to stop and look it up. That isn't what it means.

A strawman argument is one in which you misrepresent your opponents position in order to weaken it as to make it easier to defeat. It comes from when people would practice with swords against practice dummies stuffed with straw.

Now, do you have the intelligence to see that that is not what I'm doing?

Yes, apologies, thanks for the correction. I've actually never technically looked up the definition of the strawman argument, and I have been using the term incorrectly. You are not doing that, but you are doing what I stated above... fighting against an invisible enemy based off your assumption of a hidden agenda from your political opponents.

I'm nearly speechless. You are the only left winger that has ever had the maturity to admit when you are wrong. Now I feel ashamed of my verbal abuse.

Yes, I am projecting a scenario, and I am assuming an agenda. The thing is that there is plenty of good reason to make that assumption.

Many left wing politicians aren't ashamed to say that a complete ban is what they want. One of Hillary's staffers recently let slip of her intention to do just that. There's readily available evidence that gun control laws do not work. Many people here have posted tons of evidence in dozens of threads.

My scenario is not only not far fetched, it is logical.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure which troll you guys are feeding....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

 

[Conservative65]

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

The polls on universal background checks are useless...the people responding are uninformed on what universal background checks are for, and why the anti gunners are pushing them so hard.....,

lol, a typical RW denialist.

So....tell me...what does a universal background check do that will stop a criminal from getting a gun? What will they do that stops a mass shooter from getting a gun? How will universal background checks work without gun registration? Will handing you gun to your friend on the range now be a felony if you don't get a background check on the transfer of that gun?

Can you friends or relatives take your guns into their home and keep them while you are on vacation, and return them when you get back without two background checks on the transfers?

So liars polling the uninformed show nothing real about the issue.

I've asked Slade what type of background check was going to be done on the person that stole one of my guns. He's yet to provide an answer. He seems to not understand that the only ones affected by what he supports aren't the ones we need to worry about and those that are won't be subjected to those laws no matter how many are passed. Criminals don't care about what the law says or how many laws say it. That's why they're criminals.

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

That's what you think that means? Prove you have absolutely no intelligence.

 

[Conservative65]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

 

[LeftofLeft]

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

Hopefully, not too many. Most of the crimes with guns committed are done by non-NRA members. NRA Members votes GOP. That means there is a shitload of Democrats or folks voting Democrat committing crimes with guns. .

 

[Conservative65]

Your answer is you're willing to accept some harm. That's why I asked to what level.

In 2013, there were 33,636 guns deaths. 11,208 were homicides. The remaining 22,428 are excluded since they don't involve actions (suicide, accidental, unknown motive) for which any of the gun laws you propose are designed to affect.

You say not all but some can be prevented. Out of that 11,208, what would be an acceptable threshold you're trying not to cross by supporting what you support?

1 life

Are you claiming that what you support will reduce that 11,208 to 1?

No I said if a control measure reduces that number by 1 then it's a success

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

So you're willing to accept 11,207, a reduction of 1, in order to support the laws you support? That's what you're saying.

Stop with the stupid trap/baiting questions... I know what you are doing. I'm done playing hypotheticals with you. If you have a specific law that you want to ask me about then ask about it

It's not what I'm doing, it's what I've already proven. You said that if what you support would reduce it by one, it was a success. YOUR words. Since you knew the actual number (2013) that involved homicides using guns, it shows you're willing to accept 11,207 and call it successful because it was reduced by one. It wasn't like I showed you the number after you made your statement. I did it before.

How sad that you refuse to acknowledge YOUR own statement as foolish having made it knowing all the factors involved.

I asked you about a specific law related to background checks. It wasn't a vague question. It involved something YOU specifically named.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level.

How?

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law.

Good. Now explain to us how imposing strict gun control regulation on law abiding citizens will ever change that.

What strict gun controls. All we ask is that every weapon sold legally have a background check done on the person buying it. You have to admit that it just might save at least ONE life. and even one life is priceless.

Put the NRA and the Gun Nutters crede aside and do what is right for a change.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

Hopefully, not too many. Most of the crimes with guns committed are done by non-NRA members. NRA Members votes GOP. That means there is a shitload of Democrats or folks voting Democrat committing crimes with guns. .

Wow, what a remarkable transformation. Before, the person was a right wing gun owner obeying the law. All of a sudden, they transform into a gun toting mass murderer Democrat.

Newsflash: ISIS are neither Republican nor Democrat. They are ISIS. There is a very good reason that more than 50% of the shooting are done by Democrats. There are more Democrats than Republicans. The only time a republican can win is for many of the Democrats stay home out of disgust. Don't look for that to happen this time around. The more you untra rightwingers harp, the more that will find their way to the voting booths.

 

[Slade3200]

[. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level.

How?

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law.

Good. Now explain to us how imposing strict gun control regulation on law abiding citizens will ever change that.

Registration would make it easier for law enforcement to track the sources for weapons used in investigations, and it will make gun owners more responsible and accountable when buying, using, sharing, and selling their weapons.

Not everybody knows a local underground arms dealer or is going to jump through the hoops they would need to jump through to get an illegal weapon. If we make it easy for disturbed individuals to get guns, legally and in stores then its going to cause gun related crime to go up

 

[Slade3200]

The analogy when to the rationale of having a regulatiry system to promote the safety of our citizens.

I don't want to get into a gun registration debate as it isn't something I would support. I was just making a point that logically it makes sense on a law enforcement and safety level. It doesn't on a fiscal and operational level.

I acknowledge that criminals obtain guns around the law. Can you acknowledge that the law prevents SOME criminals (wreckless individuals would would likely inflict harm) from getting a gun?

Gun registration does not make sense on a law enforcement or safety level......

I have used this before...

If I put on a gun and carry it.....as long as I do not break any laws there is no cause to arrest me....and no need to register me.

If I am stopped by police they will run my name anyway for warrants...if they see I have a gun they can run my name and birthday for felonies....they can do that right now without my registering my gun.

If I am a law abiding gun owner and I take my gun and rob a store or commit a murder...they can already arrest me without having to register my gun.

If I am a felon...I cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun...and if I am stopped by police I can already be arrested on the spot for having the gun........

If I have my gun stolen, I can already go and fill out a report with the police and give them my serial numbers...

So no....gun registration is not necessary for safety or law enforcement...

I agree it isn't necessary but it would be effective, you painted around the effective points. It's off topic though so let get back to the Vegas situation.

Refresh Vega...I don't know what you are talking about....

\

Vegas refresh...

I'll give you one simple example. A young man was arrested for trying to murder Trump at one of his rallies in Vegas a few weeks ago. The kid flew to Vegas, took some shots at a gun range, went to the rally and tried to steal a gun from a guard at the rally where he was then arrested. I trust you are familiar with the incident?

Now take away gun control and play out the scenario... The kid goes to a gun store and buys a gun, kid is allowed to carry the gun to the rally (a point trump and gun advocates make would have saved lives in Paris and Orlando if people were carrying)... You have any doubt that trump would be dead right now without the restrictions that took the gun out of this kids hand at this event?

Thank you...I missed that post.......before I reply..is this the English kid?

yes

 

[jon_berzerk]

The only reason for a universal background check is to get universal gun registraton......universal background checks cannot be confirmed without registration of guns....that is why the anti gunners are pushing for it so hard.....it does nothing to stop crime or mass shooters...so why are they pushing it? Registration.

You seem like a bright guy, it puzzles me that you can't understand the logic. It's like metal detectors in the airport... A simple preventative measure to limit access the legal sale of weapons to risky individuals. Yes criminals can still get guns in the black market... some will and some won't. Not everybody is connected with illegal arms dealers...

Yet you still can't say what type of background check a thief that STOLE my gun by entering a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY where he/she didn't belong will go through for having that gun.

I did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?

The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.

Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point

criminals typically use other "routes" to obtain firearms

rather then going through a system they know they would fail

 

[Flash]

[


What strict gun controls. All we ask is that every weapon sold legally have a background check done on the person buying it. You have to admit that it just might save at least ONE life. and even one life is priceless.

Put the NRA and the Gun Nutters crede aside and do what is right for a change.

Why does a person have to get a background check when there is a Bill of Rights that says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Why do we need permission form the filthy ass government to enjoy an individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

How come the the assumption is that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Proven innocent by a government run by filthy ass dumbass corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups?

If we just want to save one life then why don't we prevent driving, swimming pools, knifes, pesticides, Big Macs and everything else in our society that is a danger?

If you just want to save one life then how about preventing abortion on demand for the sake of convenience? That would save about a million children's lives each year.

 

[Slade3200]

You seem like a bright guy, it puzzles me that you can't understand the logic. It's like metal detectors in the airport... A simple preventative measure to limit access the legal sale of weapons to risky individuals. Yes criminals can still get guns in the black market... some will and some won't. Not everybody is connected with illegal arms dealers...

Yet you still can't say what type of background check a thief that STOLE my gun by entering a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY where he/she didn't belong will go through for having that gun.

I did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?

The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.

Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point

criminals typically use other "routes" to obtain firearms

rather then going through a system they know they would fail

I agree

 

[Slade3200]

[


What strict gun controls. All we ask is that every weapon sold legally have a background check done on the person buying it. You have to admit that it just might save at least ONE life. and even one life is priceless.

Put the NRA and the Gun Nutters crede aside and do what is right for a change.

Why does a person have to get a background check when there is a Bill of Rights that says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Why do we need permission form the filthy ass government to enjoy an individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

How come the the assumption is that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Proven innocent by a government run by filthy ass dumbass corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups?

If we just want to save one life then why don't we prevent driving, swimming pools, knifes, pesticides, Big Macs and everything else in our society that is a danger?

If you just want to save one life then how about preventing abortion on demand for the sake of convenience? That would save about a million children's lives each year.

Why don't we give guns to 5 year olds?

 

[Flash]

[Q

Registration would make it easier for law enforcement to track the sources for weapons used in investigations, and it will make gun owners more responsible and accountable when buying, using, sharing, and selling their weapons.

Not everybody knows a local underground arms dealer or is going to jump through the hoops they would need to jump through to get an illegal weapon. If we make it easy for disturbed individuals to get guns, legally and in stores then its going to cause gun related crime to go up

Why does a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights have to be registered?

It is not really a right if we have to get permission from the government, is it?

Are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights is not really a real bill of rights but a fucking piece of toilet paper?

Why do you want the government to control your rights? Don't you believe in liberty? Are you stupid or something?

 

[Slade3200]

[Q

Registration would make it easier for law enforcement to track the sources for weapons used in investigations, and it will make gun owners more responsible and accountable when buying, using, sharing, and selling their weapons.

Not everybody knows a local underground arms dealer or is going to jump through the hoops they would need to jump through to get an illegal weapon. If we make it easy for disturbed individuals to get guns, legally and in stores then its going to cause gun related crime to go up

Why does a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights have to be registered?

It is not really a right if we have to get permission from the government, is it?

Are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights is not really a real bill of rights but a fucking piece of toilet paper?

Why do you want the government to control your rights? Don't you believe in liberty? Are you stupid or something?

Yeah, I rode the short bus to school